PRS

mepbmlist
#1

"That Easterlings player [attacked by the DS and down to 5 characters
at one point] was one of the biggest reasons
we one [won], but ANY ranking system would have said that he
did poorly with his nation.

You simply can't measure how well anyone did with
their mation, and any attempt to will only encourage
bad play as people try to get a good score instead of
a fun and challenging game."

&
"This PRS WILL reward bad play. It will therefore
cause more bad play."

Sorry you are mistaken. The VPs for 5/6 of the ratings is
irrelevant. Your own personal score, (Maia, Valar, Ainur, Council of
the Wise, Nazgul) is not determined by VPs. Only out of respect (and
some player's urgings) did we take into account the VP system as
designed by GSI and modified that to take away some of the grossness
of it - that's the Istari rating. So attempting to score VPs is not
important - it's winning, experience at the game, Grudge team,
win/loss ratio and player opinion that is important for the relative
ratings.

As mentioned attacking an ally (as rewarded in the GSI VP system) is
detrimental to the team and likely to reduce your team's chances of
winning. I have rarely seen it happen in recent games, partially due
to a lot of effort on our part to remove the need for it, and from
players who have frowned on such tactics. If you lose then your
Rating will go down regardless of your VPs (for 5/6 of the ratings).
So the best way to improve your rating is to support your team
winning the game in ALL the ratings above, ie it encourages, if
anything, team play IMO.

At present we're all talking opinion and have little reality to back
it up. I've had a few players contact me off list (both pro
[majority] but some expressing reservations) and hopefully have
replied to you all.

So for clarity as there seems to be some confusion. VPs don't count
in all but 1 of the ratings (Istari), and that one in a modified
manner (ie without the Victory conditions - so killing Elrond as a
Sindar player even if it is one of your VCs is not rewarded in any
manner by this rating system). I would possibly suggest that those
with a high Istari rating might well be considered to be self
orientated players and possibly avoided or just good players - but
that's the players inference to draw.

For further reference a player dropping counts as a loss for his
personal rating even if his team then goes onto win. (Exceptions
might be made, but they are the exception rather than the rule). Ie
he gets a modifier to his score of that of the losing side's loss to
their individual ratings.

I hope that's covered the major points? We can look at the topic of
other ratings at some point in the future. I want to have a trial
period, see how it impacts (IMO - negligeable other than the odd
bragging right) on the game and the fun and then reanalyse it in the
future.

That okay?
Clint

#2

Sorry you are mistaken. The VPs for 5/6 of the
ratings is
irrelevant. Your own personal score, (Maia, Valar,
Ainur, Council of
the Wise, Nazgul) is not determined by VPs. Only
out of respect (and
some player's urgings) did we take into account the
VP system as
designed by GSI

So what you're saying is that 1 of the 6 scores
directly benifits from being a poor player.

Another one benifits from spending more money on more
turns of more games than others.

One only applies to people that play grudge games.

One relies on getting people to vote yo the best
player on the team.

As mentioned attacking an ally (as rewarded in the
GSI VP system) is
detrimental to the team and likely to reduce your
team's chances of
winning.

Not in the late game. Back in the bad old days of
GWCs and VPs, many a late game was carreid on a lot
longer than need be because too many players went into
tentative mode to protect their characters, save their
armies, build their pops, and horde gold. Many a late
game character war was launched against allies for
playing way too tentatively.

And that was just for a GWC worth $15. Now, bad play
will get you put on the web site and in Bree listed as
one of the best players.

I have rarely seen it happen in recent
games, partially due
to a lot of effort on our part to remove the need
for it,

So, why bring it back? Why make the VPs meaningful
again?

Some say that it will add a layer of fun, something
more to play for. Others say it won't change how
people play at all. These both can't be true. I'm
betting on the first.

At present we're all talking opinion and have little
reality to back
it up. I've had a few players contact me off list
(both pro
[majority] but some expressing reservations) and
hopefully have
replied to you all.

Last time this came up, you claimed the response was
mostly positive. Yet, the idea got put on the shelf
for a year. Doesn't seem like something you'd do with
an idea that has the support you claim that it does.

What I saw was a lot of concern from players, a few
people that want to play poorly while being called the
best players, a bunch of people that couldn't care one
way or another, and GMs refusing to debate whether the
whole point is to get people to play more games to get
more XPs to get higher rankings.

For further reference a player dropping counts as a
loss for his
personal rating even if his team then goes onto win.

Yeah, too much for you to track who quit and then went
on to win.... You want it to make money, but you don't
really want to put in the work to make it fair.

I hope that's covered the major points?

Not even close.

One more time. WHY? Why add a ranking system that
either "will be ignored" or will change their play for
the worse? Why add a system that is more complex than
simple winning % and games played?

That is a system SURE to encourage nothing but working
toward wins.

We can look
at the topic of
other ratings at some point in the future. I want to
have a trial
period, see how it impacts (IMO - negligeable other
than the odd
bragging right) on the game and the fun and then
reanalyse it in the
future.

That okay?

No. That isn't okay. You own the rights, and can do
what you want. However, you can't make us be okay
with it.

You can't hide the fact that it is really about
getting people to spend more money.

You can try it. We'll hate it. We'll continue to
speak out about it. We won't go away.

I'll continue to point out how it rewards people that
drop. I'll continue to point out how it rewards bad
play. I'll continue to point out how it totally fails
to punish the things we all consider bad for the game
(dropping and selfish play) while rewarding bad play
(early drops and poor team play).

No... No, it isn't okay. It sucks. Sucks very badly.

Darrell Shimel

···

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

#3

Clint, have you sat down and tried to rate a couple of recently ended games
to see how they would work out?

Personally, I think that MEPBM has far bigger problems to fix than rating
players. The issue of drop outs being the biggest...

Gavin

#4

Clint, have you sat down and tried to rate a couple of recently ended games
to see how they would work out?

Yes and they look fine.

Personally, I think that MEPBM has far bigger problems to fix than rating
players. The issue of drop outs being the biggest...

We don't generally have a problem with this. The major problem we presently have is uncommunicative players and missing turns so we offer the service of players getting team-mates turns if requested and they think that that player will miss the next turn. I think you are talking about your own game of WoTR Variant - variant games are harder to fill when players drop hence I try to minimise the quantity of such games. Otherwise we invariably fill nations quickly when a drop out does occur (usually end up with more players asking for the nations than nations available actually!) :slight_smile:

As per usual we attempt to address any concern that does come up.

Clint

#5

ME Games Ltd wrote:

Personally, I think that MEPBM has far bigger problems to fix than rating
players. The issue of drop outs being the biggest...

We don't generally have a problem with this. The major problem we
presently have is uncommunicative players and missing turns so we offer the
service of players getting team-mates turns if requested and they think
that that player will miss the next turn. I think you are talking about
your own game of WoTR Variant - variant games are harder to fill when
players drop hence I try to minimise the quantity of such games. Otherwise
we invariably fill nations quickly when a drop out does occur (usually end
up with more players asking for the nations than nations available
actually!) :slight_smile:

No, I wasn't talking about the WotR variant, I was talking about virtually
every game I have played in the last few years. Not one single game has
ended with the same players that started it: in the last game (and which was
the final straw for me) I think we were down to four starting players, some
having to lay two positions, when it went belly up. I've been in games where
players quit almost as soon as it started: for some curious reason, this
seemed to coincide with the end of the "free" turns...

Gavin

#6

ME Games Ltd wrote:

Clint, have you sat down and tried to rate a couple of recently ended games
to see how they would work out?

Yes and they look fine.

Any chance you could publish them, so people can judge the various
correlations between what they think and what the system produces?

Gavin

#7

No, I wasn't talking about the WotR variant,

I've been in 2 WotR games and haven't seen a single
drop.

I was
talking about virtually
every game I have played in the last few years. Not
one single game has
ended with the same players that started it:

In 101 I started as Corsairs and ended up as Cardolan
and Dwarves as those players dropped.

In 233, Noldor has picked up Woodmen.... And we're
only on GT4.

Darrell Shimel

···

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

#8

For active players who've signed up they'll get their ratings soon - the website will have the other details for the top XX.

Clint

···

>> Clint, have you sat down and tried to rate a couple of recently ended games
>> to see how they would work out?
>
> Yes and they look fine.

Any chance you could publish them, so people can judge the various
correlations between what they think and what the system produces?

Gavin

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

****************************************************************
                    ME Games Ltd
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: EpicMail, PO Box 801, Wexford PA 15090-0801, USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if in the US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Fax: 1-503-296-2325 (preferred)
US Phone: 412 302 2505 EST 10-5 Weekdays
US alternate Fax: 775 535 2171 Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************

#9

No, I wasn't talking about the WotR variant, I was talking about virtually
every game I have played in the last few years. Not one single game has
ended with the same players that started it: in the last game (and which was
the final straw for me) I think we were down to four starting players, some
having to lay two positions, when it went belly up. I've been in games where
players quit almost as soon as it started: for some curious reason, this
seemed to coincide with the end of the "free" turns...

Yes players do drop out - don't get on with team-mates etc. BUT you have either have a situation where you have drop outs getting picked up OR games ending with viable nations not being played. I don't think there's much middle ground. The nature of PBM is that players do drop out of the game due to reasons beyond their control (the biggest one seems to be a promotion at work!) and having to cut back (invariably they come back into a different game but that's not pertinent to the game that they have left).

I don't see that that's a problem. Is it? If you bring in a new player you get a free turn for that t/o and we rarely get any dropped nations not picked up so I don't see what that has to do with the free turns. Two reasons we dropped team-mates getting the free turn, 1) money we lost money and each turn a "new" player could pick up the nation get a free turn and then pass it on, 2) it has no real impact as we do fill drop outs in most of the cases.

Clint

#10

Darrell Shimel wrote:

I was
talking about virtually
every game I have played in the last few years. Not
one single game has
ended with the same players that started it:

In 101 I started as Corsairs and ended up as Cardolan
and Dwarves as those players dropped.

In 233, Noldor has picked up Woodmen.... And we're
only on GT4.

Kinda supports what I was saying, really...

I mean, come on, dropping on or before turn 4?

Gavin

#11

ME Games Ltd wrote:

Yes players do drop out - don't get on with team-mates etc. BUT you have
either have a situation where you have drop outs getting picked up OR games
ending with viable nations not being played. I don't think there's much
middle ground. The nature of PBM is that players do drop out of the game
due to reasons beyond their control (the biggest one seems to be a
promotion at work!) and having to cut back (invariably they come back into
a different game but that's not pertinent to the game that they have left).

Reasons I've seen given over the years have included "boredom", "out of
cash", "they are going to win in twenty turns anyway, so why continue?",
"I'm in too many games", and others.

Boredom: not sure whose fault that is except that the game is often a
reflection of the player(s).

Out of cash: no problem, the real world has a nasty habit of interfering
with leisure activity.

They're going to win...: Nothing quite like giving up the fight, is there?

I'm in too many games: This is a no-brainer: check *before* signing up that
you can take the load! This one actually really gets my goat as it is one of
the most selfish reasons for dropping around and is totally avoidable.

PBM has changed a lot in the 25+ years (gulp!) that I've been playing it,
some for the better, some for worse. The better includes a wider choice of
good games (including MEPBM and Godfather, to cite but two) and quicker
turnarounds. The worse includes a much shorter "attention span" and less
commitment on the part of players: it is not uncommon to get an email saying
that a player has dropped a viable position but that "doesn't matter because
another game is starting shortly".

More than one player has dropped a position citing the fact that he is not
prepared to pay another hundred quid or so to see it through. This happened
in my last game and was the final nail in its coffin, as it were, for that
particular game. However, that reasoning implies that the money that other
players have already paid is of no concern to him: a selfish attitude,
really. Had we known that a perfectly viable game was going to fall apart
like that, I wonder if I, or indeed any of the other players, would have
coughed up the fairly large chunk of cash we had already paid up to that
point.

MEPBM, by its nature, and 2950 in particular, is a long haul game which can
have high and low points as well as slow periods. If you're not prepared for
that, you shouldn't sign up.

Gavin

#12

More than one player has dropped a position citing the fact that he is not
prepared to pay another hundred quid or so to see it through. This happened
in my last game and was the final nail in its coffin, as it were, for that
particular game.

I don't agree with that synopsis - if you are talking about the WoTR variant individual game. Some players just like to try things out and Variants often attract that sort of player. The FP missed turns, causing disatisfaction amongst the team and general discontent. Along with comments from FPs saying that communication was minimal were (from my perspective as I tried to clean up the mess) the major reasons.

If you're not talking about that particular game I retract my comments.

However, that reasoning implies that the money that other
players have already paid is of no concern to him: a selfish attitude,
really.

Yes if that were the sole reason - my impression it was just a factor in this games' demise.

MEPBM, by its nature, and 2950 in particular, is a long haul game which can
have high and low points as well as slow periods. If you're not prepared for
that, you shouldn't sign up.

I agree it is a longer haul game - so are you signing up for another? :slight_smile:

Clint

#13

ME Games Ltd wrote:

More than one player has dropped a position citing the fact that he is not
prepared to pay another hundred quid or so to see it through. This happened
in my last game and was the final nail in its coffin, as it were, for that
particular game.

I don't agree with that synopsis - if you are talking about the WoTR
variant individual game. Some players just like to try things out and
Variants often attract that sort of player. The FP missed turns, causing
disatisfaction amongst the team and general discontent. Along with
comments from FPs saying that communication was minimal were (from my
perspective as I tried to clean up the mess) the major reasons.

If you're not talking about that particular game I retract my comments.

In that particular game (223), the collapse was caused mainly by one player
deciding he'd had enough and didn't want to "waste" more money on the game.

I agree it is a longer haul game - so are you signing up for another? :slight_smile:

No.

Gavin

#14

223 was a clusterf*** on the FP side, I'll be the first to admit.

First dropout came on turn 5. Turn 10 the second had occured. Turn 11
the third. All these three was picked up by other FP players.

Turn 21 came our first SpecService'd turn, as one of the double-
players missed his turns. Turn 22 the game was basically over.

Enjoyable setup for the most part, but we had no gameplan. We were
just constantly reacting and coming up short :frowning:

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavinwj <gavinwj@c...> wrote:

In that particular game (223), the collapse was caused mainly by
one player deciding he'd had enough and didn't want to "waste"
more money on the game.